Now and then, a court decision comes along to restore your faith that nonpartisan judges can fairly read the plain text of statutes and constitutional provisions and render entirely rational decisions. No, we don’t get such things from the MAGA-controlled Supreme Court, which has become so corrupted by rank partisanship as to forfeit its legitimacy, but we do get such examples of real judicial handiwork from lower federal courts and state courts.
We got just such a satisfying result last week from Missouri’s Supreme Court, as the New York Times reported:
The judges said a referendum on the new district lines had been improperly denied a spot on the November ballot, and that the redrawn map should have been paused until voters weighed in.
The redrawn map “did not go into effect and will not go into effect unless and until approved by the voters,” Judge Ginger K. Gooch, who was appointed by a Republican governor, wrote in the opinion. The prior map, she added, “remains in full force and effect for the November 2026 general election.”
This was not a hard case. Missouri Republicans eagerly served up a re-redistricted map when Donald Trump snapped his fingers last year, but the voters wanted their say and collected enough signatures to qualify a referendum for the ballot, which Republican state officials blocked (“Who are voters to interfere with our Trump servility?!”).
Though the headlines after the ruling focused on the outcome (a “win” for Democrats in allowing Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, whose district Republicans targeted, to run for re-election in his current seat, increasing the likelihood of a Democratic hold, and in keeping Republican incumbent Ann Wagner’s seat in the 2nd Congressional District competitive, thereby increasing chances of a pickup for Democrats), the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision, a concise 14 pages, deserves our full attention.
The Missouri Supreme Court held that voters were improperly denied a say in how the congressional lines were to be drawn:
Because the plain language of article III, section 49 of the Missouri Constitution authorizes a referendum as to “any act of the general assembly” and no exception applies, the referendum petition was legal, sufficient, and timely.
Now, the MAGA-controlled U.S. Supreme Court uses all sorts of excuses to allow the MAGA president to do exactly as he pleases, but in Missouri things apparently work differently.
The desperate MAGA Republican secretary of state insisted “no exception” did not mean “no exception.” (“The secretary’s sole basis for declaring the referendum petition insufficient is that the Missouri Constitution does not authorize a referendum on congressional redistricting passed by the General Assembly.”) But it says “no exception.”
The unanimous Missouri high court slapped down this spurious argument:
The secretary asserts the Missouri Constitution does not permit a referendum ... because the Missouri Constitution has no plain, clear statement subjecting legislation drawing new congressional districts to a referendum. But this ignores article III, section 49, which provides: “The people … reserve power to approve or reject by referendum any act of the general assembly, except as hereinafter provided.”
Then Republicans offered this doozy: “The secretary argued that the Constitution has an exemption for ‘laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, and laws making appropriations for the current expenses of the state government, for the maintenance of state institutions and for the support of public schools[.]’” Umm, what does that have to do with redistricting?
The Missouri justices had the same question and found the argument preposterous. “This Court cannot rewrite the Missouri Constitution to substitute ‘all election laws’ for ‘the immediate preservation of the public peace,’” the court held. The Republicans’ argument was especially weak since the mid-decade redistricting could not possibly be related to “public peace” because “the 2022 congressional districts established by the General Assembly remain in place unless and until repealed.”
The justices also gave the back of the hand to the cockamamie argument that suffrage was an “institution” that couldn’t be touched by voters in a referendum. The court pointed out that “the right of referendum to congressional redistricting passed by the General Assembly does not eliminate suffrage generally or the General Assembly’s right to redistrict. Instead, if by referendum vote the voters reject the new redistricting … the General Assembly’s prior redistricting in 2022 remains in effect. The General Assembly also remains free to go ‘back to the drawing board to do [new] redistricting.’”
Finally, the justices knocked down the nonsensical argument that the last date for the referendum was August 4, the primary election day. The justices, evidencing just a touch of irritation with the nonsense served up by the secretary of state, held: “This Court need not speculate about why the General Assembly chose the statutory deadline or whether the statute is valid in every case because a later-enacted statute has no bearing on the constitution’s plain language. The plain language of the constitution permits a referendum as to ‘any act of the General Assembly’ regardless of any statutory deadlines set by the General Assembly decades later.” Oh.
The court therefore concluded:
The referendum petition was legal, sufficient, and timely, and the secretary incorrectly concluded otherwise. [The Republican re-redistricting plan] did not go into effect and will not go into effect unless and until approved by the voters. The congressional redistricting the General Assembly established in 2022 remains in full force and effect for the November 2026 general election.
The Missouri Supreme Court’s unanimous decision insisting words mean what they say is, on one hand, unextraordinary. But in an era of MAGA word-twisters and reality-deniers, the decision comes as an exhilarating reaffirmation of intellectual honesty.
We’re reminded of the exchange in Alice in Wonderland:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
Contra Humpty Dumpty, words and facts do have discernible, objective meaning. The notion that Trump and his MAGA minions are “masters,” free to reset reality and write text to match their own ends (as despots have historically done), has become one of the Trump regime’s most pernicious characteristics.
In short, those who value the rule of law and objective truth should applaud the Missouri Supreme Court’s rejection of the Missouri MAGA Republicans’ nonsensical argument that “no exception” means “no exception unless we want the power to gerrymander the state over the wishes of the voters.”
Donald Trump naturally blew his stack on hearing about the ruling. His Missouri lackeys will race to Trump’s protectors on the MAGA-controlled Supreme Court. We will see if the Missouri justices’ entirely sensible ruling withstands the MAGA hacks’ scrutiny — or whether we go through the looking glass and tumble back into the world of mad justice and partisan hackery.
For now, however, we can revel in the notion that, at least in Missouri’s highest court, “no exception” means “no exception.”
***Check back in with The Contrarian this afternoon for my first installment of “The Daily Jolt!” ***
I’m also thrilled to be returning to Coffee With Contrarians tomorrow at 9:15 a.m. ET. Tune in to hear Norm and me catch up on everything you need to know to start your day as we begin our midterm push and discuss some major legal wins.
Read more from The Contrarian:
Upholding the constitution & the rule of law? A novel concept for current SCOTUS. Expand the Supreme Court to restore the rule of law.
Still waiting for motions to recuse on bias for Thomas and Alito.....